As Hillary Rodham Clinton's prospective U.S. Senate campaign faltered late
last month, her media acolytes offered a ready explanation. Was it her
disastrous Israel trip? FALN flip flop?

Nope, bad press.

The "conservative" New York Post, if you believe the hype, snookered the rest
of the New York media into giving Hillary a bum rap.

Late last month, left-wing stalwarts such as New York magazine columnist
Michael Tomasky and Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter complained that the New
York Post had blown her Israel trip out of proportion. Hey, all she did was
indulge a little blood libel.

At a West Bank ceremony, the normally outspoken Mrs. Clinton metamorphosed
into a deaf mute as Mrs. Yasser Arafat accused Israel of poisoning
Palestinian women and children.

But Alter explained that the First Lady took "the only sensible
course"--check with Washington's diplomats before responding. But might she
have expressed some displeasure without consulting Washington? Did Mrs.
Clinton have to kiss Mrs. Arafat on both cheeks?

Meanwhile, Alter is blowing kisses to Mrs. Clinton.

He writes that the Post turns Hillary's every "miscue into a disaster." Along
the same lines, New York Times reporter Felicity Barringer wrote December 7
that the Post has been "quick to point out actions and statements that seem
to reflect badly on Mrs. Clinton." What's wrong with that? Should the paper
sweep them under the rug? Or gloss over them? Isn't that the job of flacks,
not reporters?

Now, personal responsibility hasn't quite been a hallmark of the Clinton
administration. But the reality is that Hillary--not anyone else--turned what
should have been a routine campaign trip (albeit financed by taxpayers) into
a disaster. Her silence in the face of the blood libel infuriated Israelis
all across the spectrum. Then she added insult to injury by issuing a
statement urging BOTH sides to avoid inflammatory rhetoric. And even offered
some "Clintonesque" explanations for her silence: She supposedly couldn't
follow the translation of Suha Arafat's remarks, etc.

Many in the media glossed over her mistakes--a Boston Globe headline
declared, "In Mideast, Mrs. Clinton Shies from Controversy"--but the Post did
not.

Moreover, Hillary took her most severe beating from opinion columnists, not
news reporters. The Post ran its "Shame on Hillary" headline under a November
12 Steve Dunleavy column about the Arafat meeting. Andrea Peyser followed
with a similar broadside, declaring the campaign is "all but over except for
the whining."

Just the brass knuckles treatment a candidate can expect? Nope, according to
her media defenders, all this was a concerted effort by the "conservative"
New York Post to derail the Clinton candidacy.

In a front page story, the New York Observer told how "Murdoch's New York
Post Gleefully Roasts Hillary." Greg Sargent and Josh Benson said the
skewering of Hillary Clinton followed in the Post's "long history under
[Rupert Murdoch] of overtly attempting to get favorite sons and daughters
elected. The Post's pounding of Mayor David Dinkins in the early 1990s was
summed up in a single memorable headline: 'Dave: Do something.' The headline
referred to the mayor's perceived inaction in the face of a spiraling crime
rate, but it seemed to capture the image of a befuddled politician unable to
cope with a collapsing city."

Actually, Murdoch did not own the Post when the paper urged Dave to "do
something." (Peter Kalikow did.) Moreover, there was a rather simple
reason--apart from the Post--why Dinkins had an image "as a befuddled
politician unable to cope with a collapsing city." He was. Under Dinkins, a
simple city stroll could easily turn into an elaborate game of
hide-and-go-seek with muggers, squeegee men, and homeless people.

As for Hillary, the real bias here is on the part of journalists who for
months and even years swooned over Mrs. Clinton--particularly her "vast
intelligence." Coverage of Mrs. Clinton's ruminations about a senate run earli
er this year befitted a coronation.

CBS News anchorman Dan Rather gushed that "once a political lightning rod,
today she is political lightning." His colleague Bob Schieffer told how he
had "dreamed Mrs. Clinton already won the New York senate race.

Time essayist Lance Morrow saw a "Celtic mist forming around Hillary, as a
new archetype somewhere between Eleanor and Evita."

This is nothing new, of course. During the 1992 campaign, Time columnist
Margaret Carlson gushed that Hillary Clinton is a "remarkable woman. There is
no doubt that she is her husband's professional and intellectual equal."

Oh, is she?

Now, it turns out the Empress has fewer clothes. That would be quite apparent
even if the Post were not available to offer a spirited dissent from the
generally liberal New York media.

And if Hillary, who now trails Rudy Giuliani in the polls, can't take the
heat, she would do well to stay home and bake
cookies.